THE RT. HON. JAMES STANSFELD, M.P.,

ON THE

FAILUEE

OF THE

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS,

AS PROVED BY THE

OFFICIAL EVIDENCE

SUBMITTED TO THE

SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF

COMMONS,

1879, 1880 AND 1881.

“ The neck of this Iniquity is broken . ... I say it is impossible, if
they uill give their attention to such a statement as I have addressed to
you to-day, that the Government can do other than one thing — and that is
Repeal the Acts.” — (Vide Speech.)

TO BE HAD OF THE

SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
REPEAL OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS,

2, WESTMINSTER CHAMBERS, LONDON, S.W.

Price Twopence, Post - free.

London :

Printed by Pewtress & Co.,

15, Great Queen Street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, W.C.

CONFEEENCE OF KEPEAL ASSOCIATIONS IN

LONDON.

ME. STANSFELD, M.P. ON THE HYGIENIC
FAILUEE OF THE CONTAGIOUS
DISEASES ACTS.

An important Conference of Delegates from Repeal Associations and
other well-known friends of the cause was convened by Mr. Stansfeld,
M.P., on Tuesday, October 25th, 1881, at Neumeyer Hall, London.
Mr. Stansfeld himself occupied the chair.

The Secretary of the National Association read the following list of
the Associations there represented : —

The National Association, The City of London Committee, The
Fbiends’ Association, The Wesleyan Association, The Congrega-
tional Committee, The Ladies’ National Association, The National
Medical Association, The Northern Counties’ League, The Midland
Counties’ Electoral Union, The Birmingham Ladies’ Committee,
The Working Men’s National League, The British and Continental
Federation, The North-Eastern Association, The Scottish National
Association, The Gentlemen’s and Working Men’s Committee
(Chatham), The Gentlemen’s Committee (Bristol), The Ladies’ Com-
mittee (Bristol), The Ladies’ Committee (Clifton), The Working
Men’s Committee (Greenwich), The Ladies’ Committee (Woolwich),
The Ladies’ Committee (York), The Ladies’ Committee (Belfast), The
Canterbury Comjiittee, The Oxford Committee, The Colchester
Committee, The Ladies’ Committee (Reading), The Women’s Committee
(Nottingham), The Ladies’ Committee (Alloa), The Gentlemen’s Com-
mittee (Maidstone), The Moral Reform Union.

Mr. Stansfeld, who on rising was greeted with cheers, again and

4

fl

again renewed, said : — Ladies and gentleman, I took upon myself to
call this Conference that I might speak to you in an informal manner,
and perhaps you will now allow me to occupy the chair without
being formally voted to that oflSce. I am not going to make an
oration; I am here to make a plain, business statement; to tell
you that the time for action, or what I call business — for I like
that old English word — is at hand. It is true that the Committee
of the House of Commons, which has sat for three sessions on the
Contagious Diseases Acts (and of which I am a member) has not yet
reported, and does not appear to be very near to the point of making
a report. Nevertheless, before the close of the last session of Parlia-
ment, I thought it my duty — exercising that full and free liberty of
judgment and discretion upon which terms alone I undertook the conduct
of this question in the House of Commons — I felt it my duty to give
notice that during the next session of Parliament I would introduce
the subject ; that I would invite, and I would obtain, if possible, a
decision of Parliament upon this question. While I have to justify
that proceeding to you, I do not affect to believe that you will be
a jury particularly difficult to convince. Because — if I read your minds
aright — you have been waiting with some degree of impatience — (hear,
hear) — and even bewilderment for the time of action to arrive. (Hear,
hear.) But I have to justify it, because within the limits of Parlia-
mentary action, I am responsible, and it is an exceptional step to
take, to announce, as I have announced, that even if the Com-
mittee which is sitting upon these Acts, and of which I am a member,
should not have reported before the expiration of next session, I will
so far as I may be able, appeal to the judgment of Parliament on
the subject. (Hear, hear.) Well, now, I proceed to justify that
course to you. First, let me give you some of the dates and history of
this Committee. The Committee was appointed on the 11th of
June, 1879. I am not responsible for its appointment, but I have
been a member of it and have borne on the whole, as I believe, the
most laborious part. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It sat for one month in
that session ; was re-appointed in February, 1880, and then sat twice,
to hear Dr. Nevins evidence, before Parliament was dissolved. It was
ro-appointed in the first session of the new Parliament but, after
repeated delays, it adjourned without having once met for business.

5

It was re-appointed in January, 1881, but did not meet until
February 23rd. Previously it bad met sometimes twice a week,
and often only once a week ; but owing to pressure which I
put upon the Committee during the last session, it sat generally
twice a week. It adjourned on July 28th (although Parliament
sat for nearly two months longer), upon the motion of Mr. Osborne
Morgan, the Judge Advocate-General and the representative of Her
Majesty’s Government upon that Committee, supported by the pro- Acts
members of the Committee, against the objections of myself and of the
Kepeal members who sat with me on that Committee. If it had not
been for this action on the part of the representative of Her Majesty’s
Government we might have made much more progress in the discussion.
This brings me to the question of the changes of persons on the
Committee, but I do not think I need refer to more than one of those
changes specifically. When the present Government was formed we lost
one very intelligent and earnest friend in Mr. Shaw Lefevre ; a man full
of energy, with a large capacity for usefulness upon our subject ; he
felt, no doubt, that upon taking office under a new Government, he
would wish to have his hands free from laborious and painful duty in
connection with a subject of such great responsibility as ours. His
place was taken by Mr. Osborne Morgan, the New Judge Advocate-
General. Now I am about to speak to you with perfect frankness.
I desire to. have no secresy, no affected, dishonest courtesy in this
matter. In exchanging Mr. Lefevre for Mr. Qsborne Morgan we
have lost a trustworthy and intelligent friend, and have gained an
opponent ; and the mischief, and the bitterness (for the Liberals
amongst us) lies in the fact that this opponent is the nominee on the
Committee of Her Majesty’s Government. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Osborne
Morgan has, in my opinion, played the part on that Committee of a
partisan advocate. (Hear, hear.) He has defended every official down to
the meanest policeman engaged in the administration of the Acts. (Hear,
hear.) There is nothing which — according to Mr. Osborne Morgan — is
not beneficial in the operation of these detestable Acts, and above all in
their moral influences. If any one will take the trouble to read through
his examinations and cross-examinations of witnesses befoi'e that
Committee they will recognise the truth of what I say. (Cheers.) Mr.
Osborne Morgan has so played his part as to outrage Members of

6

Parliament upon that Committee who are opposed to this legislation.
He has sat there as the advocate of the Acts. He has neighboured with
those who agreed with him, and turned aside from those opposed to
this legislation as if they were beneath the notice of his new, official
eye. You will not imagine that he has been allowed to pursue this
course without an occasional reminder, and what I say about him I say
simply because he is the representative, on that Committee, of the present
Governmept. (Hear, hear.) I have made representations to the Government
upon the subject, and what I said to them I now repeat to you to-day.
Either he represents them or he does not ; if he does represent them,
then they are our opponents on this subject ; if he does not represent
them, it is time for them to look after him lest he should commit them
too far. (Hear, hear.) Now, as to the progress made on that
Committee. We have finished the hygienic question. But this is but
the fringe of the great subject. (Hear, hear.) I have always said,
and I repeat it here, that, to my mind, the most damning evidence
against the Acts would bo the proof of their complete hygienic success.
(Loud cheers.) And I do not say this from the moral standpoint
only ; I say it from the hygienic standpoint ; from the most lofty
hygienic standpoint. If you could, by this legislation, guarantee what
you profess to guarantee, that people might practice sexual vice without
incurring the danger of the diseases incident to vice, you would not only
demoralize the people, but you would physically degenerate and ruin
the population. (Hear, hear.) Those members of the medical profession
who are unable to rise to the conception of this hygienic argument, are
grovelling in the mud of the specialisms which weaken and contaminate
.their minds. But we have got to the end of the mere hygienic question.
On the question of the army medical statistics and the vaunted results
and success of this legislation, I think I have somewhat of a special
right to point out to you the great success which we have obtained.
No doubt, it has not been possible for all of you to follow carefully
the reports of the examinations and cross-examinations of the medical
witnesses before this Parliamentary Committee. Many of you may have
read the epitomes of these examinations and cross-examinations which
have appeared in The Shield. It is impossible for me to express
too high an opinion of the marvellous justness and accuracy of
those resumes. (Hear, hear.) Extreme accuracy and judicial com-

7

pleteness characterize that work, but I am bound to admit that
something more is wanted for those who can only read as they run.
They want to know the questions as well as the answers to them, and
therefore I assume (though no fault do I find in the admirable works of
art to which I have alluded), that to a certain extent many friends of
Repeal may not be fully conscious of the tremendous victory that we
have won. (Hear, hear.) Let me show it to you. When I first
entered on this movement I began with the conviction which I
unhesitatingly expressed, that there was no such thing conceivable
— under the divine law which governs human life — as any truly sanitary
and at the same time immoral, human law. (Hear, hear.) Of this
I was so profoundly convinced that I did not only believe it in
that larger sense, but I believed it in the narrower, immediate sense ;
and I said : I will seek and I shall find, detect and expose the imposture,
the miserable pretence of an hygienic success which the advocates of
the Acts put before the public. (Loud applause.) And the truth of this
conviction with regard to the hygienic question has been proved out
of the mouths of our opponents’ own witnesses. (Hear, hear and loud
cheers.) Now I will tell you what has been shown out of their own
mouths before this Parliamentary Committee which has occupied our
time and kept you comparatively inactive, but which has, none the
less, been of immense importance. First of all there was the argument
of the reduction, or what was called the reduction, of the inefficiency of
the forces. What we have accomplished is this — we have compelled
the medical advocates of this system and the representatives of this
law to put their conclusions into figures, and to explain the methods of
their calculation. By cross-examination we have got upon the minutes
some very important results. One of the first things Sir William
Muir said was that he had shown in the year 1875, to the Secretary
of State, that the saving in the army was 190 men per annum. The
meaning of that is — as I put it — that 190 men were on parade instead
of being in hospital, and in cross-examination he repeated the figures,
and said, “ yes ; that is the total saving." But a month or two after,
when we had the proof of his evidence, we found a note that
he should not have said 190 — that the real saving was of 300
men. Then as the advocates of the Acts could make nothing of
Sir William Muir, they called that hard-headed Scotchman, Ex-

8

Surgeon-Major Lawson. But one difficulty with which they had to con-
tend was, that these two never agreed ; and when the time for arguing
this question in the House of Commons comes, I shall call upon the
Government to elect between these two advocates of their system j to
choose which they will have, and tell them, “ You can t choose both, for
they take quite different views.” Mr. Lawson was put forward as a
witness of great strength, and I elicited from him a definition of the
grounds and the method of his calculation, and the result of this cross-
examination was as I think to entirely put their figures and calculations
out of court, and to confirm my own. I say this without hesitation,
but of course it is a matter of opinion. For my present purpose
it is enough for me to say that the whole question of saving of
inefficiency is now thoroughly threshed out ; that no further inquiry of
any extent is necessary or possible, and that it is now for Parliament to
judge between these gentlemen and myself. (Hear, hear). Now as to
the reduction of disease. In speaking on this subject in public, I never use
medical terms, I think I can make myself clearly understood without them.
You are aware that in the army medical statistics they divide the
diseases which are the consequence of sexual vice into two classes.
One of these classes is confessedly local and non-constitutional ; about
the other there is some question. With regard to the confessedly
local and non-constitutional class it has been admitted that the Acts
have had no success whatever. Mr. Lawson attempted to argue the
success of the Acts from the diminution of admissions to hospital after
1873, in which year Lord Cardwell’s Order came into operation,
hut it had been previously admitted by them that the whole statistics
of disease issued after Lord Cardwell’s Order were invalidated by the
fact that that Order led to the concealment of disease. Up to that year
it was admitted by the army medical reports and by the witnesses
themselves, that the Acts had had no effect whatever in respect of this
non-constitutional class of disease. With regard to the second class
of disease most of which is also non-constitutional and merely local, I
say that the cross-examinations of the medical witnesses who were
called in support of the Acts prove our figures, showing a limited
reduction, and not their sensational figures. You will remember that in
their calculations they went back to years before the Acts were in
operation to get a higher standpoint from which to show a fall — but

9

my point to the contrary was a simple one. I found, on analysing it,
that there was a given period in that series when the Acts were only
partially applied, in which the proportion of disease was larger among
the protected than among the unprotected men in the ultimately
subjected stations, I therefore said: You must begin there, and you
must not take credit for any previous reduction which evidently cannot
be attributed to the Acts. Then we came to the question of the real
constitutional disease about which so much has been said and written
as to the extent to which society is interested in it, because it is said
that it may affect the constitutions of children yet unborn, and about
which, therefore, they make so great an outcry. Up to the time of
this Committee, the army medical department had always said we
could not distinguish the amount of this specific disease station by
station, because when the secondary symptoms arise we do not know
to which locality to attribute the primary infection ; therefore they
declined to give the secondaiy symptom returns. But being hard
pressed they put Mr. Lawson forward with some new figures. It was
found that in the w'hole Home army there was no diminution whatever,
during the period that the Acts have been in operation, in the amount
of constitutional disease as evidenced by the existence of the secondary
symptoms. Ex-Surgeon-Major Lawson set to work and produced a
return, station by station. But what did this return show ? First of
all it showed that in the subjected districts, the proportion of consti-
tutional to non-constitutional cases increased year by year under the
influence of the Acts. That is to say, it showed conclusively that
the main effect of the Acts — wherever there had been a reduction —
had been in the non-constitutional cases. And further, their figures
showed, taking station by station, that there was no change whatever
in the relation between the two classes of stations — on the one hand
before the Acts and on the other hand after the Acts — with respect
to the average constantly sick from these secondary causes. Now,
have you followed me in what I have said ? If, between two separate
groups of stations, which are compared to prove the value of certain
Acts of Parliament, you find a certain relation existing before those
Acts came into operation and that the same relation continues to exist
after these Acts came into operation, is that not evidence sufficient
to the mind of any child in a national school, that these Acts have

10

produced no effect ? (Hear, hear.) This is proved out of their own
figures as far as the constantly sick are concerned. It is true that
these figures — if we believe them as Gospel — show a more rapid
diminution in subjected districts, in the number of admissions of the
secondary symptom cases — but when we find that the proportions of
the constantly sick remain the sapae, what is the conclusion ? As a
mere arithmetical calculation, the conclusion is that the effect of these
Acts was to detain the patients longer in hospital, and the inference is
almost inevitable that the cases were more severe. I believe that
this is the opinion of the National Medical Association, represented
here by Dr. Carson. Now, I ask you if I have stated the case
correctly to you, without going to our own medical witnesses, but
simply by taking the admissions of our opponents, whether our case is
not in a position at the present time to be presented to Parliament
without any further delay ? (Loud applause.) But we are much more
deeply indebted to the medical witnesses for the Acts than I have shown
you. I will explain to you now the extent of our debt. Sir William
Muir, Ex-Surgeon-Major Lawson, and Dr. Barr of Aldershot, have made
admissions which I say distinctly ought, and which I devoutly hope
will, prove fatal to the whole system of the Acts. They have each
made their admissions, they have each made their contribution to the
good cause, and I will give you now the contribution of each. We
have always said that the comparison between the two classes of stations
was unsound and unfair. To compai’e a camp with a small civil
population in its neighbourhood, with a station in which a small force
is situated near to, or in the metropolis, or any large manufacturing
town, is, evidently, monstrously unfair, and if you will look to the
figures of the unsubjected districts, you will see that there is no com-
parison between the large towns and the smaller. Strike out London,
Dublin, and one or two other places, and you see plainly the comparative
innocence of the unprotected stations. We have always said that, but that
is of course a mere matter of opinion and of argument. But at the same
time I have always said about the medical statistics that I did not believe
them to be intentionally unfair, and I will say that even now ; but,
without charging their compilers with intentional fraud, I may say that
they are marvellous instances of the way in which partisanship and a
kind of trades unionism pervert the intellect and blind the judgments of

11

men. What did we hear to our amazement from Sir William Muir ?
I have the book before me —

“ On the first arrival of troops at stations in the United Kingdom, to which
the Contagious Diseases Acts apply, or on their return from furlough, they will
be examined with a view to prevent the introduction of such disease.”

That is to say, to prevent their spreading the disease among the
women who are provided and set up as fit for prostitution by the
Government, for the use of the men in that district. Whenever a
regiment goes into an unprotected district, or a soldier returns from
furlough there, he is as deliberately let free to propagate disease among
the poor prostitutes in that district. And of course there is no mistake
about it — that is the printed regulation. There is no qualification about
it, and it will give you an illustration of the way in which a narrow
officialism and partizanship blind the judgment of men. The medical
witnesses informed me that this was done to secure a fair trial for the
great experiment ! (Laughter and applause.) I have not too exalted
an opinion of the morality or the judgment of men, but there is some
notion of justice, I believe, in the British legislative mind, and I really
pity the sensations of these men when I show to the British Parliament
the fact that they have — very unconsciously — committed frauds upon
Parliament and the public by doing something worse than cooking
statistics ; by cooking the facts upon which their statistics are to be
founded. (Hear, hear.) The contribution of Surgeon-Major Lawson is
at least as valuable. He told us that at a certain date he visited
Aldershot to make certain inquiries into the existence of disease in
the regiments there. He told us frankly — I will give him that credit
as frankly as he gave the information — that he found in regiments
subjected to the same protection and under the same conditions, differ-
ences of this kind : (I am now speaking of the number of yearly

admissions to hospital per thousand men for that one of the two classes
of disease which contains an undetermined proportion of constitutional
disease within it.) He found that the number of admissions to
hospital in these regiments under identical conditions in all respects,
and subjected to the same protection as far as the operations of the
Acta were concerned, varied from 23 per 1,000 to 146 per 1,000.
Bear in mind that there exists no such difference between the highest
unprotected and the lowest protected stations. Parliament therefore

12

ought to see, and Parliament will see that the Acts cannot be credited
Avith the reduction to 23 admissions per 1,000 when in regiments similarly
circumstanced the number is 146 per 1,000. Parliament ought to see
and will see that the difference between 146 and 23 is, in the very
nature of things, due to causes exterior to the Acts ; due to the
character and habits of the men themselves. (Hear, hear.) I will
read to you one or two of those pregnant answers of Mr. Lawson to
the Chairman who examined him on this point. I examined him after-
wards myself, hut for the present I take his answers to the Chairman.

(Question 413.) “Do you know whether it was the practice to examine the
men in either of these regiments comprised in this last list ? ”

(Answer.) “ In some regiments they took considerable trouble as they thought
to secure a low venereal list ; and strange as it may appear I found nearly that
those were the regiments that presented the highest ratios.”

(Question 414.) “ The regiments which were best taken care of ? ”

(Answer.) “ No, I do not say that ; those who took apparently the most precaution.
To give an instance, in the North camp in the case of the regiment with 114
admissions the medical officer was a very efficient medical officer, and took a great
deal of care, but the men were inclined to be wayward. In the next regiment
with 69 with also a very careful medical man they had a system of night ablution
in the regiment to which the medical officer and commanding officer attributed
the very low rate in comparison with the other regiment; but I went to the
third regiment, the medical officer of which was also a most careful man and
the regiment in thorough order ; he had no system of night ablution at all, and
yet he had less than half the rate of the regiment beside him.”

(Question 415.) “ The regiment which had night ablution was in a more

diseased state than the regiment which had not ? ”

(Answer.) “Of these two; similarly in a regiment in the west block, they
had a system, whether it was vigorously carried out or not I cannot tell, but they
had a system that every man who returned to barracks after 9 o’clock, or after
tattoo, which would be 9.30, should go into the guard-room, and he had the
means of ablution there. But notwithstanding that, the rate was up to 124 per
1,000. In the next regiment to that they had no such system, yet the rate was only
42 per 1,000. It depends vastly upon the customs which exist among the men in
the regiment, which one has a difficulty in ascertaining. You cannot get at it
except by getting some staid, non-commissioned officer to confide it to you. It is
a difference in the habits of the men which I believe is greatly the cause of it, and
also the gregarious habits of the men that induce those of one regiment to
resort very much with a limited number of females.”

You will note that these precautions on the part of the medical men are
not taken for the protection of the men from vice, but they are taken to

13

do away with the natural consequences of vice. But nevertheless, the
rate was up to 124 per 1,000. Then he sums up thus — this man,
approving of the Acts and called there to support the Acts, and it shows
the blindness of men — “ It depends vastly upon the customs which exist
among the men in their own regiments.” (Hear, hear.) That is Ex-
Surgeon-Major Lawson’s contribution.

Now I come to perhaps the most important of all, and that is the con-
tribution of Dr. Barr, of Aldershot ; but before I give his portentous
figures, I must make an explanation. To many of us, very much to
myself, a new and marvellous light was thrown upon this hygienic
question by our own witnesses, in examination and cross-examination,
and I think we are indebted for it to Professor Lee, admittedly about the
first expert in England on this subject. It was this — that every poor girl
who falls into a life of prostitution almost invariably becomes affected
with constitutional disease in the first year. But, mark, that disease,
like small-pox, acts as a protection against re-infection. Her capability
oiimpcating infection may remain, but it is, comparatively speaking, very
rare that she is reinfected with a constitutional attack. You will say to
me, “Well, if that is the case, are you not minimising the danger of
constitutional infection from the practice of vice ? ” By no means.
She may remain infectious, although it is difficult for anyone, even for
the examining surgeon, to know it ; because it is not a question of mere
outward contact — it is something else — but further than that she may
and does become a medium, a channel, conveying the constitutional
infection from man to man. I have often spoken in public on this
subject of mediate contagion, and I now tell you the result of this
inquiry is more and more to prove to my mind that the bulk of contagion
is mediate contagion ; that is to say, the bulk of contagion so far as these
poor v/retched women, who are examined, manipulated, and educated for
the public service are concerned. The next conclusion to be drawn is,
that even if these poor women are protected as far as they themselves
are concerned, it is not, in the main, the constitutional disease which
the Acts can affect. They cannot obviate mediate contagion. The cases
of new infection which they may discover are the non-constitutional
cases of the two classes, and the figures produced complete my proof.
These figures are produced by Dr. Barr, and I will read them to you.
Dr. Barr told us he had been for thirteen years examining women at

14

Aldershot, and during that time he had conducted 64,848 examinations
— (“ shame ! ”) ; that, in 46,867 cases there was no disease ; that there
was disease in 7,667 cases, and that out of those 7,667 cases of disease,
4,941 — more than five-eighths — were of that class of which I have
already told you that it is admitted universally on both hands that the
Acts have had no effect whatsoever. (Hear, hear.) Two thousand and
eighty-five were of that other class to which I have alluded, which is
not important, saving in respect of the undetermined fraction concealed
within it, of cases which may ultimately turn out to be constitutional.
The number of constitutional cases is, in the long run, determined by the
number of cases of secondary symptoms, because these secondary
symptoms invariably arise, in more or less pronounced form, in consti-
tutional cases. Now, out of the whole 54,848 examinations, only 641
throughout all these thirteen years during which Dr. Barr has been con-
ducting his examinations, turned out to bo cases of secondary symptoms.
That is Dr. Barr’s contribution to the repeal of Acts by which he lives.
(Applause.) Now taking the facts I have put before you as proofs of our
own previous position vouchsafed to us out of the mouths of our adver-
saries, I ask you whether the question is not now ripe for the decision
of Parliament, and of the general public ? (Hear, hear and applause.) I
have one word more to say about our own medical witnesses and what
they especially deposed. They analysed, criticised, dissected, and tore
in pieces the Government returns. They entirely denied the scientific
soundness of the Government classification of disease. They repudiated
some medical theories which were put forward to justify, but which did
not justify that classification, and they succeeded in showing the Com-
mittee that the enormous preponderance of medical opinion not only in
England but thoroughout the world was against the particular theory
which was thought necessary as part of the justification of the Acts, and
lastly, they bore their united testimony to the failure of the Acts them-
selves, judging them by their fruits. (Applause.) What have I now to
say about the character and weight of this authority ? Well, we have
all of us had reason to know the value of the opinions of our eminent
friend, Dr. Routh (applause) — whom I see here amongst us, and of
whom in his presence I cannot now speak. We had also the valuable
evidence of Dr. Drysdale — (hear, hear) — an acknowledged expert on this
subject, and an admirable witness. We had also the evidence of Pro-

15

lessor Henry Lee, — (applause) — to whom — and I speak under medical
correction in this room, — there is no superior authority on this
subject in the British Islands. And, further, we had our own Dr.
Nevins — (applause) — of whom I will say that, if you could take all the
medical advocates of the Acts and roll them into one man, that collec-
tive being would not know nearly so much about the army medical
statistics as Dr. Nevins has shown us that he knows. (Applause.) The
Government brought forward no evidence except that of army surgeons.
I have no doubt that they could have brought other evidence, but they
did not do so, — but what I do say is this : they could not by any
possibility — and I do not ignore the divergence of medical opinion
— they could not have found weightier or higher authority in
favour of the Acts,' than we actually did bring forward against them.
The case I must put to Parliament and to the Government, and especially
to this Government, is this : I must ask them, “ Will you take the
responsibility — of maintaining Acts against which the best of your
supporters and the moral and religious elite of the country protest on
moral, religious and constitutional grounds, upon an exploded medical
theory and a divided medical opinion?” I say it is impossible, if they
will give their attention to such a statement as I have addressed to
you to-day, that the Government can do other than one thing, and that is
repeal the Acts. (Applause.) I am prepared with my case. I
propose to give a reasonable time, and so far as I am concerned I
am willing to compress the remaining evidence, for it is comparatively
child’s play to deal with the moral and religious evidence, because they
cannot possibly fight us upon that ground. I can, however, assure you
that it has not been by any means child’s play to deal with the purely
hygienic question. The neck of this iniquity is broken ; this it was
necessary to do ; and if I have helped in anything I surely have helped in
that. (Applause.) I shall obtain a day, and I shall leave a certain
time to the chance that the Committee may conclude its labours, but I
repeat what I have already said ; I will not again be shunted or put
off. (Applause.) The whole subject so far as Parliament is concerned,
is in my hands. That is understood. I have given notice of a Bill, but
I must be absolutely free to judge for myself from day to day, as to the
forms and occasions of Parliamentary procedure. But we are so near the
end that I am not for waiting for another day to get to work. There

16

are plenty of other matters as to which Parliament onght to he compelled
to look into this question. (Hear, hear.) There is the question of
the Belgian traflSc. I suppose that those who have taken the most
active interest in that subject will have arranged with some member
of Parliament to take it in hand. Then again, there is the subject of
the Hong Kong traffic. That matter I propose to take in hand myself.
(Applause.) Then there is the other question of the infamy of our
Indian regulations, and lastly there are the Estimates. I say there-
fore that it is easy to raise our question on these side issues, and it
will be our duty to be troublesome to Parliament and the Government
upon them all. I could name some members of Parliament now who,
when our question comes up, will prove themselves friends, valiant
and true; who will remain by my side in these somewhat more aggres-
sive tactics.

And now to proceed : you have a part to perform too. The time is come,
or is at hand for you all — every one present — to buckle on your armour,
and to get into fighting trim. You must understand that there must
be no delay, no doubt, no hesitation, no faint-heartedness, and no
unnecessary criticism. Let us all merge criticism in action. (Applause.)
The time of trial of this system, and of the principles which underlie
this system, is near at hand; but your time of trial is also «at hand.
Our opponents, relying on their Fabian tactics of delay, have doubtless
been hoping, and half-believing that during these days of comparative
inaction our courage must have been oozing away, our faith diminishing,
and our enthusiasm waning ; and that when the moment of actually
joining in the fight shall arise they may find that half the virtue
has departed out of us. If they find that, I will give them joy.
I will give them joy in their day and generation, but shame to
us ; because that would be the first time in the history of our land
when faint-heartedness ever lost a noble and a moral cause. We
Liberals (I speak for myself — and I dare say that most of us
are Liberals in this room, but we are not here on a political question) —
we Liberals have been considerate with the late Government, because we
all felt that they had not been primarily and officially responsible for
this national iniquity. We Liberals have been patient with the
present Government, because we believed in our hearts that in their own
time and manner, they must inevitably come to our aid. But if the

17

present Government are fairly represented by their own nominee on
the Select Committee of the House of Commons, then I warn you that
they are our enemies and not our friends. No one has ever been able
to accuse me of any want of party allegiance ; no one has ever been
able to say that I put personal objects above my allegiance to my party’s
cause. But for myself the time has come for something more than this,
and I here declare that upon this subject, I owe, henceforth, no allegiance
whatsoever save to my conscience and the higher law. (Loud ap-
plause.) And now, if you agree with me that the time is ripe, and that
there is no measure of obligation on me to wait any longer ; that the case
isripeforpublicjudgmentandthat I am entitled to take that case to its
bar, I say it is for you now at once to come to some determination
and to some practical conclusion as to the part that you intend to play
and as to the mode of action which you will now take up, and to
maintain it actively, persistently, obstinately, until the end be won.
(Loud Applause.)

Mr. R. F. Maktineau, of Birmingham, Chairman of the Midland
Counties Electoral Union for Repeal, then moved the following
resolution ; “ That this meeting, having heard from the Right Hon.
James Stansfeld a statement of the present Parliamentary position of
the movement for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts and of
his fixed determination to introduce a Repeal Bill in the next session,
and to ensure a discussion in the House, hereby records its satisfac-
tion at this announcement, expresses its continued confidence in him as
the Parliamentary leader of the movement, and urges the several Asso-
ciations to give him all the support in their power by promoting
petitions to Parliament, by interviews with and memorials to Parlia-
mentary representatives and by public meetings and other means
which may suggest themselves.” Mr. Martineau said he felt that he was
only speaking the feelings of those present in saying it had been truly
refreshing to listen to this battle call, a call which would bo heartily
responded to throughout the length and breadth of the land. They
should take back to their homes something of the enthusiasm which
prevailed in that meeting. The period of inaction had been very
trying to many of those present, but now the time for action had come
they would do their utmost to support Mr. Stansfeld’s endeavours
in the coming Parliamentary session. All must rejoice that he had

18

}

promised to introduce this question in season or out of season.
There would be many opportunities for so doing, with regard to
the different analogous questions likely to come before Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) The time had come for united action. They would all,
he felt sure, be earnest in their efforts to support him to the utmost of
their power. He moved the resolution with the greatest pleasure and
most perfect confidence of its acceptance by the meeting. If anything
had been wanting to convince them Mr. Stansfeld was the man to lead
this question in the House of Commons, it would have been supplied
by the masterly and excessively able statement to which they had
listened. Never were facts marshalled so admirably, never a more
complete mastery of facts and figures displayed ; nor could any speech
upon this great subject have been uttered in a higher and nobler moral
tone.

Mr. H. J. Wilson, of Sheffield, hon. Secretary of the Northern
Counties’ League, said he had the utmost pleasure in seconding the
resolution, and in expressing his hearty approval of it, and his gi’eat
enjoyment and satisfaction in hearing the address to which they had
just listened. On behalf of the North of England, he would simply
say that they should do their utmost in giving vigorous support to
Mr. Stansfeld in any measure and in any line of action which he
thought proper to adopt.

Mr. Cbossley of Halifax, Treasurer of the Congregational Committee
of Repeal, desired to support the motion. Mr. Stansfeld was the
representative in Parliament for Halifax, the town from whence he (the
speaker) came. He was there to encourage Mr. Stansfeld, if his
presence could do so, in carrying out his determination with energy
and with zeal. (Hear, hear.) After alluding to the time when Mr.
Stansfeld s position as a member of the Government had compelled
him to greater reticence upon the question, the speaker said he felt
double pleasure in assuring him that Halifax would most heartily
support him, and he (the speaker) would assist by every means in
his power to strengthen his hands.

Mr. Benjamin Scott, Chamberlain of the City of London, hon.
Secretary of the City of London Committee for Repeal, rose to express
his satisfaction with what he had heard that day, and hearty approval

19

of the resolution. Perhaps no part of the statement which he had
listened to had been so gratifying to him as that in which Mr.
Stansfeld had stated that time was come when both in season and
out of season this matter should he pi'essed upon the notice of
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) One of the most disgraceful facts in
Parliamentary history, was the fact that a report like that from the
Government Commission of Hong Kong should have been laid before
Parliament for two years, a report the contents of which were so
terrible, and that not a single question had been put to the Govern-
ment of England to know what they were doing or intended to do
in reference to the disclosures in that report. No more disgraceful
or disgusting statements were ever produced to any Government,
ancient or modern, Christian or pagan — (hear, hear) — and they had
awakened no response whatsoever in Parliament. After alluding in
detail to the horrors of the legalized system of prostitution in Hong
Kong (which have been published in our pages), and to the revenue
derived therefrom by the Colonial Government, the speaker said they
must indeed labour in season or out of season — he did not care much
which — to have the whole subject dragged before Parliament and before
the public. (Applause.) The speaker then inquired of Mr. Stansfeld
whether the introduction of a Kepeal Bill would be likely to be made
a reason for dispensing with the further evidence to be produced
before the House of Commons Committee. Judging by the summaries
which had hitherto appeared in The Shield, he thought that a large
portion of the moral and constitutional evidence had yet to be brought
forward. He hoped there would be an opportunity of producing
evidence on these grounds.

Mr. Stansfeld : I cannot deny that there is an element of difficulty
and awkwardness in the course I propose, but I have given my
reasons for adopting it, and it is evident you approve of those reasons.
No course that can be taken is free from difficulty. I shall give some
time to it, but if I have to compress much of moral and religious
evidence, it will be because they cannot possibly meet us on that ground.
It may be that the pro-Act party on the Committee may meet my
move by a counter move of their own. But the course I propose
meets your approval and your wishes, and I deliberately think the
time has arrived when I, who am responsible for the conduct of this

20

matter in Parliament, am entitled to say : “ you have no right to
further delay, no right to put our friends to this unnatural and unfair
strain. You have no right to procrastinate indefinitely the decision
on this question.” Moreover, I am quite satisfied to go to Parliament
on the hygienic case, for if they cannot defend the hygienic case
they have no case at all ; and I have therefore given notice of a day,
and have said that it is not possible for me to wait another year. It
is a balance of difficulties 1 know, but I am satisfied that we are on
the right course. Does that satisfy Mr. Scott ?

Mr. Scott was sure that all present were perfectly satisfied to
give Mr. Stansfeld the entire freedom of action which he very properly
asked for, but earnestly hoped that some opportunity might be found
of bringing before Parliament the evidence of religious persons and
ministers who were opposed to the Acts on moral grounds and from
knowledge of their efi'ects. He would further say that though born
and bred a Liberal he heartily concurred in Mr. Stansfeld’s assertion
that this question was above all questions of party politics. He should
be obliged to ask his own conscience, when the time for voting came,
whether he might vote with his party unless these Acts were repealed.
(Applause.)

Mr, W. M. Jack said that as representing the gentlemen of the
Committees of Bristol, he must express their obligation to, and com-
plete confidence in, Mr. Stansfeld, Perhaps the patience of some of
those present had been severely tried by the long waiting, but he had
considered it to be exceedingly wise, just as the present onward
movement appeared to him to be extremely wise also.

Mr. Geokge Gillett, of London, said, on behalf of the Friends’
Association for Repeal, that although they had felt during the past year
the languid air of the movement in Parliament, they had appreciated Mr.
Stansfeld s noble and important work on the Select Committee, and
the inaction of Parliament must rest on other shoulders in that House
itself. Ihey could not expect him to give his mind and energy to his
labours on the Select Committee, and to fight the battle in the House
of Commons at the same time j but the Friends would receive with
the greatest pleasure the intelligence that there was to be an im-
portant aggressive movement next session.

21

The Eev. J. L. Adey, Baptist Minister, of Scarborough, said he could
claim personal acquaintance with the friends of the cause in Scarborough* ^
and came to represent the local Committee on this occasion. Scarborough
was at present represented by a member who had never voted against
Eepeal, and by another member who was a thorough-going repealer.
They hoped to have a good public meeting, and to present a largely-
signed memorial to their city members, and he had authority to say
that the question was alive there, and now that the time for action had
arrived, they would begin afresh, and on going back he should concert
measures which would furnish somewhat substantial assistance to
Mr. Stansfeld in the question.

Professor James St.uakt, of Cambridge, perceived the general feeling
of encouragement from Mr. Stansfeld’s words. It was as a repre-
sentative of the British and Continental Federation that he was there,
as well as on his own account. This great movement throughout the
whole civilised world, which had arisen from the action of a few people
here, from Mr. Stansfeld and others in that room ; this great move-
ment for law, justice, right, and the law of God, should be adequately
supported. He felt justified in reminding them that it now depended
upon the men and women present, what should be the result of
this great movement during the next hundred years. It depended on
them, during the next six months, what should be the future of this
movement, and he hoped that the great idea which was prominent
with them all would lead them into more vigorous action. The
suggestion he had to make was, that in England they could not carry
out a great national awakening — a great national cause — and show an
example to the world, unless they were willing to make sacrifices,
and one of the things in which all could make sacrifices was to
deprive themselves of some of the pleasures or luxuries which they
were in the habit of enjoying in order to contribute more money to
this cause, for money was absolutely necessary. About 150 persons
were present in that room, it would not be too hard for them to dock
themselves of £5 or so each, and this would produce nearly a thousand
pounds. Let everybody take this to themselves, though some of them
might give £30 or £40 to this cause. He did not care to what association
or society it were given, but it was, in fact, money that they wanted in order
to fight their battle in the next six months and money they must have.

22

That he urged upon them as a practical point. He had read carefully
the evidence to which Mr. Stansfeld had referred, and it had left the
impression on his mind that, “ The Lord hath delivered them into our
hands.” But he had also observed that in the House of Commons and in
the House of Lords — where the traffic in young girls had been considered
— the generality of the Committee were advocates of the Acts and they
treated the witnesses against the Acts more or less as if they were
dishonest witnesses who required brow-beating. And they ought to be
deeply grateful to Mr. Stansfeld who had endured at first-hand so much
of what had made him (the speaker) feel so indignant when he read
of it only at second-hand. (Applause.)

Mr. F. Wheeler, as a representative of the Eepeal Committees
in the subjected town of Chatham, felt bound to thank their
worthy leader and all the friends present for their help and
sympathy, for most assuredly it was needed. Chatham had now
eighty-four brothels. Anniss, of Plymouth, told us that such
houses were visited by his men twice in every twenty-four hours. If
this duty were performed in Chatham with half that frequency, say
seven times a week, that would make 30,000 police visits in the year,
not for the purpose of reproving, but of regulating this wicked traffic.
The public sentiment of the place was inevitably debauched by this
unceasing education.

Mr. Alderman Rees, of Dover, said : Their Chairman’s antecedents
justified them in trusting him fully, both on the constitutional and the
moral aspect of the question, but unless the people come to the rescue
we were done. He could tell bis countrymen facts which would bring
them to a white heat to help on the cause. The eye of the nation
must look at it and that eye could only see it through Parliament.
The worthy Chamberlain of the City of London feared that the moral and
constitutional question might be shirked in Committee, but these points
would follow in due course. They did not need to convince men that the
sun was shining at 12 o’clock in the day. Everyone knew that and
everyone knew that these Acts were unconstitutional and immoral, and
what they wanted was to have a Bill brought into Parliament and to
have a discussion. Their foes were miserable cowards — (laughter)

and they could not go against Mr. Stansfeld. Some of their repre-

23

sentatives would say: “We never voted against the repeal of the
Acts,” but they must reply : “ Why don’t you go like men and vote
against the blackguard legislation altogether.” He admired the course
which Mr. Stansfeld proposed, and he admired his masterly grasp
of the present position, and he tendered to him his profound gratitude
for the encouragement he had given them.

Rev. H. P. Hughes, hon. Secretary of the Wesleyan Association
for Repeal, said that Methodists would be glad to do their best
for the cause. His Church had lately had an fflcumenical Congress
in London, which represented twenty-five millions of persons, and
he was thankful to say ho had succeeded in inducing that gathering to pass
a unanimous resolution condeming the system altogether. After describing
the representative character of that Congress (a report of which has already
appeared in our columns), the speaker urged the desirability of combining

a plan of united action among the constituencies upon this great moral

•

question.

Mr. Percy W. Bunting, on behalf of the same Association,
said he was sure that all present would respond to the call
which had come from the chairman that day. He thought that
the extremly valuable summary given by Mr. Stansfeld of the
medical evidence, which would of course be printed, would afford
them just the material they wanted to put before the country so
that the public might be informed upon the question up to date. No
doubt if the perfectly indefensible system carried out with
regard to our Indian army were fully stated in Parliament, the
officials would meet it with a denial, although probably in three
months afterwards they would recede from that denial, but he thought
that a careful collection of the evidence on the subject, seeing that
it was authoritative beyond question, would, if put into the hands of
some member and laid by him before the House, startle and arouse
Parliament into a sense of the infamy of the system.

Mr. William Shaen, as Chairman of the National Association
for Repeal, said he was sure that the news of the Conference would
be received by all the Repeal Associations with the greatest possible
satisfaction and mutual congratulation. As far as the National Association
■was concerned the change would not be a change from comparative

24

repose to action, but simply a change of one form of action for
another. The amount of work done during the past year had been
principally unseen by friends in the country — (hear, hear) — but it was
only necessary to look at the Blue Book recording the twenty-
five meetings of the Select Committee, each of which might be
likened to an important trial in a Court of Law, and had involved an
immense amount of preliminary labour to get together the materials to
be handled by their admirable advocate and leader, Mr. Stansfeld, as
well as a large amount of work subsequent to each sitting, in order
that any gaps might be filled up — it was only necessary to look at that
Blue Book, and by a slight exercise of the imagination, anyone could
form an idea of the important and continuous work that had been
carried on. He was very glad to hear Mr. Stuart speak of the money
question, because one result of the close attention they had had to pay in
London to the details of the woi'k to which he had alluded had been that
•they have not been able to devote time and attention to the question of
the sinews of war, as they had done in former years. But precisely when
it had been more difficult to collect money had money been more and more
needed. They were on the eve of what ho trusted would he the closing
contest, and he hoped that the exhortation of Mr. Stuart would tend to
largely increase their own contributions and exertions to obtain more
from their friends. He was also glad to hear Mr. Hughes’s reference
to the resolution of the Methodist CEcumenical Congress. But
hitherto it had too often happened that those who had thus borne
testimony appeared to feel that thereby they had done enough.
But a testimony of that kind ought to he considered only as
the trumpet call to battle — the battle had to be fought quite apart
from such testimonies, and he hoped that the religious organizations
would feel that the only real value of a testimony of that kind
was the fact that it was held by each individual as a pledge to do
some earnest work, and to bring their social and political influence
to bear upon their representatives in Parliament. He trusted that
their leader would leave this meeting encouraged to renew his exertions,
and that he might have further and better support in the House of
Commons than he had had in the past.

Mr. Stansfeld here requested Mr. Shaen to take the chair as he was
obliged to leave.

25

Eev. J. P. Gledstone, hon. Secretary of the Congregational
Committee for Repeal, said that as all sections of the Christian
Church were tendering their support to the resolution, he also did so
on behalf of the Congregational Union. Although for a long while
that body stood aloof from voting openly upon this subject, ^they had
now officially declared against the system, and he was sure they
would all stand by Mr. Stansfeld in his great task.

Miss Tod, hon. Secretary of the Belfast Ladies’ Committee,
said she was there representing, she might say, the whole of
the Irish workers on this subject — not only the Belfast Ladies’
and Gentlemen’s Committees, but also an important meeting of
Ladies from all parts of Ireland, a fortnight ago. All the Irish workers
were extremely glad to hear of this Conference, and she had been com-
missioned to say that they would do their utmost to carry out the,
suggestions made on that occasion. In Ireland, being further
removed from the greater centres of activity, they were able
to take a broader view of the matter than those who lived
nearer to the work in hand ; they saw the flow of the stream
and lost sight of the undercurrents. Their feeling had certainly been one
of hopefulness. They found that the revelations of the Belgian traffic
had awakened interest in quarters within which they had before failed
to attract attention. That portion of the question had been spoken of
in the newspapers, and moreover that did not appeal to any partisanship
in regard to the army or medical men. The fact that so many people
had been led to look first at the foreign question and then at the home
question was a very encouraging fact. And the evidence of the Select
Committee was matter of encouragement to them, because that extremely
valuable Committee had, to some extent, the importance generally
attributed to Parliamentary matters. Generally, therefore, they should
resume work with even more energy and hopefulness than before.

Dr. Cabson, of Liverpool, said there were two points upon which he
desired, in the name of the National Medical Association, to offer a
few observations. During the past two years that Association had been
somewhat resting on their oars, but they felt that the time for resting
had come to an end. They were especially indebted to their invaluable
President, Dr. Nevins, for the immensely important evidence he had

26

given before the Committee of the House of Commons. He had thought
and his opinion had been paramount with them, that it was more
becoming while the legislature had solemnly referred the matter to the
Select Committee of the House of Commons, to suspend the general
agitation. But now that the hygienic case had been so clearly put before
the Committee, they thought they should actively agitate in the future.
In their last meeting they did not confine themselves — they never
had done so and never should — to the simple hygienic question.
From much of what had occurred in certain portions of Her Majesty’s
dominions, they feared that the course of the present Government
would not in the future be guided so much by the needs of true
progress as of Parliamentary expediency, and he was instructed to
support in the strongest manner this noble determination of Mr.
Stansfeld to fight the battle without regard to any flimsy Parliamentary
notions. The Medical Association had had before their minds the
terrible prospect that all the doctors in Europe, or at least the flower of
them, united in Conference in the metropolis, might present an united
requisition to all the Governments in Europe calling upon them in the
interests of an imaginary or baseless hygiene to extend the infernal
system to all Europe, and base it on International Law. They had
had that prospect before them. They determined to put an end to it,
and he was proud to say they had completely done so. Although a
medical man, he claimed to speak impartially, because, although they
had been occupied with the hygienic question, he did not care the
fraction of a farthing for any results of the hygienic system. He
could give them no true impression of their former suspense, nor of
their satisfaction when attending the International Medical Congress. It
would be impossible for him to overstate the utter scientific, intellectual,
and he might almost say the vocal incompetence of the gentlemen
who presumptuously presumed to defend the system.'(Laughter.) He
could not exaggerate the feebleness, the imbecility, the absurdity
of it, and could only say that it was on a par with the intellectual
and moral insight displayed by the same parties. The opponents of
the Acts — both in the section of Public Health and afterwards in the
section of Military Surgery — had speakers in the proportion of two to
one. So much for numbers. As to quantity they each filled up the
ten minutes allotted to them, and were prepared to fill up a great deal

27

more, whereas on the other side the speeches ranged from three minutes
to five minutes, and were generally — he might say all, with one exception
— mere screeches. The one exception was that of Inspector-General
Lawson, and they had the satisfaction of saying to Lawson, “ You
ask us to accept your statistics, will you tell us when you are going to
accept them yourselves?” He (the speaker) said to him — as he was
close to him — “ I divide your statistics into three classes ; First, those
which as yet remain unchallenged by you ; secondly, those which you
have withdrawn, and substituted others for on account of errors ; and
thirdly, those which you have absolutely withdrawn, and for which you
have not substituted anything.” At the beginning of the sitting their
polite confidence was everything that the most fastidious man could
demand ; at the end of the seance, if he were to say that their
features betrayed rage and shame combined, it would not be too much.
The thing ended at last in the subjects necessary to be treated being
simply brought on, and no resolution was proposed. And he might
say that he did not believe that any of the partizans there would
have had the assurance to have risen and proposed a vote of confidence
in the system. But although that was the case, he warned the Con-
ference that those gentlemen were silenced but not convinced. They
retained the same prejudices and the same desire to pander to those
whose sons are in danger from vice, but whose daughters are safe from
being subjected to the Acts, viz., the upper classes. He was instructed
to adjure them not to let anything stand between the Associations and
the great work, on the one hand of instructing the country by every
means possible, and on the other hand, of giving full, loyal and cordial
support to their Parliamentary leader. He would further suggest that
the public meetings called during the coming winter should be called
expressly in support of some particular phase of the Parliamentary
work.

The Rev. C. S. Collingwood, hon. Secretary of the North-Eastern
Association, said they would be greatly encouraged by what had occurred
that day, and all of them must have felt the greatest satisfaction in hearing
Mr. Stansfeld’s speech. His feeling in regard to Mr. Stansfeld’s leader-
ship had always been one of unbounded confidence. If anywhere any
doubt had been felt, he felt sure those doubts were removed ; and all
present must feel that the cause was in the best possible hands, and that

28

they had nothing whatever to fear, but everything to trust for the
carrying on of the work. He confessed he had felt some shame
when the Rev. Mr. Hughes, who represented the Methodist Church,
and the Rev. Mr. Gledstone, who represented the Congregational
Church, spoke of the action which their churches had taken in the
matter, to remember that the Church of England, to which he belonged,
had as yet taken no part, but he hoped the time was coming when the
Church of England would speak out as one man against the infamous
Acts. He was glad that Mr. Stansfeld was prepared to take up the
Chinese and the Indian questions, which ought to be thoroughly threshed
out. Mr. Collingwood then made suggestions as to methods of work
for the consideration of the Conference, after which

Mr. Edmondson, Halifax, alluding to what Mr. Stansfeld had said
in reference to the work to be done inside the House of Commons,
expressed a strong hope that they would not forget to raise discussion
upon the case of Elizabeth Burley. A great deal of notice had been
taken of Elizabeth Burley’s case, and he for one should not feel
satisfied until the Home Secretary were made to apologise for the injury
which he had inflicted upon that young woman. With regard to work
outside the House he thought it would be of immense importance if
some of the Parliamentary friends of the cause, of whom Mr. Stansfeld
had spoken, would attend some of the public meetings on the subject,
which it was intended to hold before next session.

The Chaieman (Mr. Shaen) having made several suggestions as to the
modes of agitation to be adopted — the arrangements for and conduct of
public meetings, &c. —

Mrs. Tannek, of Sidcot, Weston-super-Mare, said : That before the
resolution was put, she desired, as one of the representatives of the Ladies’
National Association, to declare their most hearty and earnest approval
of the resolution, and to promise in the name of the Association that
they would do all in their power to support Mr. Stansfeld in his great
work.

The Chaieman then re-read the resolution to the meeting, after which it
was carried unanimously amidst applause.

The meeting then separated.

LIST OF THE PEINCIPAL ASSOCIATIONS AND
COMMITTEES FOE THE EEPEAL OF THE
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS AND THE
ABOLITION OF STATE-EEGULATION OF
VICE.

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION : 2, Westminster Chambers, London, S.W.—
W. Shaen, M.A., Chah-man. W. T. Malleson, B.A., Vice-Chairman. Frederick
C. Banks, Secretary. Barclay, Bevan & Co., Bankers.

THE LADIES’ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION : 348, Park Eoad, Liverpool, and
2, Westminster Chambers, London, S.W. — Mrs. J. E. Butler, Hon. Secretary.
Mrs. M. Tanner, Treasurer.

THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.— J. B. Nevins, M.D., 3, Aber-
crombie Square, Liverpool, President. W. Carter, M.D., 74, Rodney Street,
Liverpool ; T. Carson, M.R.C.S.I., 206, Upper Parliament Street, Liverpool, Hon.
Secretaries.

THE MIDLAND COUNTIES’ ELECTORAL UNION: 20, Paradise Street,
Birmingham. — R. P. Martineau, Chairman of Committee. Jesse Herbert ;
W. Morgan, Vice-Chairmen. J. E. Baker, Treasurer. A. J. Naish ; T. Worth,
M.R.C.S., Hon. Secretaries. Rev. W. Wastell, Secretary. J. Craig, Financial
Secretary.

THE NORTHERN COUNTIES’ LEAGUE. — Rt. Hon. Lord Beuwevt, President.
H. J. Wilson, 255, Pitsmoor, Sheffield, Hon. Secretary. J. Edmondson, Heath
Avenue, Halifax, Treasurer.

THE WESLEYAN METHODIST ASSOCIATION.— P. W. Bunting, M.A.,
18, Endsleigh Gardens, Euston Square, N.W.; Rev. H. P. Hughes, B.A., Selbourne
Villa, Black Hall Road, Oxford ; Rev. A. Rees, 23, Bridge Road, West Battersea,
S.W., Hon. Secretaries.

THE FRIENDS’ ASSOCIATION : Offices, Queen Anne Chambers, 1, Poultry,
London, E.C. — William Fowler, M.P., President. F. Wheeler, Rochester,
Chairman of Committee. George Gillett, 72, Lombard Street, London ; Joseph
Edmondson, Halifax; Barton Dell, Bristol; A. J. Naish, Birmingham, Hon.
Secretaries. A. S. Dyer, Secretary. Samuel Gurney, Treasure^-.

THE CONGREGATIONAL COMMITTEE.— Rev. J. P. Gledstone, Tnlse Hill,
S.W., Hon. Secretary. Edward Crossley, Halifax, Treasurer.

THE BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL FEDERATION FOR THE ABOLI-
TION OP STATE.REGULATED PROSTITUTION : 2, Westminster Chambers,
London, S.W., and 348, Park Road, Liverpool. — James Stuart, M.A., LL.D.,
Professor of Mechanism in the University of Cambridge, Financial Secretary.
Mrs. J. E. Butler, 348, Park Road, Liverpool, Hon. Secretary.

THE CITY OF LONDON COMMITTEE: 69, Basinghall Street, E.C.—
S. Morley, Esq., M.P., Chairman. Wm. McArthur, Esq., M.P., Vice-Chairman.
R. C. L. Bevan, Trenswm-. Benjamin Scott, F.R.A.S.; James B. Porter, Hon.
Secretaries.

30

THE WORKING MEN’S NATIONAL LEAGUE : 1 & 2, The Poultry, London,
E.O. — Edmund Jones, President. Joseph Joyce ; Sidney Godlt, Secretaries.

THE NORTH-EASTERN ASSOCIATION— Rev. C. S. Collingwood, M.A.,
Rector of Southwick, Suderland, Hon. Secretary. Feedeeick Claek, 5, Summer-
hill Grove, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Treasurer.

THE MANCHESTER DISTRICT ASSOCIATION.— R. Hawoeth, J.P., Didsbury,
President. Chardes Heekoed, 17a, Cooper Street, Manchester; Edward P.
Ridgway, 71, Market Street, Manchester, Hon. Secretaries.

THE MANCHESTER LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. 0. O’Conor, 124,
Upper Brook Street, President. Mrs.M. J. Herfoed, Treasurei\ Mrs.R. Whitelegge,
11, Greenhill Street, Greenheys, Hon. Secretary.

THE BIRMINGHAM LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. S. Sodthadl, Wellington
Road, Edgbaston, Treasurer. Mrs. H. P. Kenway, 37, Carpenter Road, Edgbaston;
Mrs. L. Stamps, 46, Calthorpe Road, Edgbaston, Hon. Secretaries.

THE BRISTOL GENTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION,— W. H. Bddgett, J.P., Hon
Treasurer. P. Watson, Tower Leaze, Stoke Bishop; J. Stores Fey, Charlotte
Street, Hon. Secretaries.

THE BRISTOL LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. L. Thomas, Stoke Bishop,
President. Miss Mary A. Estlin, 36, Upper Belgrave Road, Clifton; Miss Mary
Priestman, 9, Durdliam Park, Hon. Secretaries.

THE CLIFTON LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. A. J. Bddgett, Stoke House,
Treasurer. Mrs. M. Williams, 1, Lansdowne Place; Miss N. Price, Pembroke
Road, Hon. Secretaries.

THE LEEDS LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. H. Ford, Adel Grange, President.
Mrs. Celia Walkee, Springfield Mount, Hon. Secretary. Mrs. Eliza Tatham,
Springfield Mount, Treasurer.

THE YORK LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. H. Richardson, Cherry HiU,
Hon. Secretary. Mrs. J. E. Clark, Treasurer.

THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL ASSOCIATION : 5, St. Andrew’s Square, Edin.
burgh. — David McLaren, Chai'mian. Rev. H. Calderwood, L.L.D., Professor of
Moral Philosophy, University of Edinburgh ; Rev. W. D. Moffat, United Presby-
terian Minister, Hon. Secretaries. W. Morrison, Organizing Secretary.

THE EDINBURGH LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. E. P. Nichol, Huntley
Lodge, President. Mrs. P. McLaren, Newington House, Vice-President. Miss
Eliza Wigham, 5, Grey Street, Hon. Secretary. Miss Walls, 33, Heriot Row,
Treasurer.

THE GLASGOW LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. E. Buchanan, 17, Ashton
Terrace, Dowan Hill, President. Mrs. Ritchie, 39, Westboume Gardens, Billhead,
Treasurer. Mrs. Eliza Maclaeen, Clyde View, Partick, Hon. Secretary.

THE GLASGOW WORKING MEN’S ASSOCIATION.— W. Hammond, 30, Kirk
Street, Calton, President. John Crichton, 52, Cranston Street, Secretary.

THE DUBLIN ASSOCIATION. — H. J. Allen, 28, Lower Sackville Street ;
Mrs. A. Haslam, 91, Rathmines Road, Hon. Secretaries.

THE DUBLIN WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. M. A.M. Allen, Brooklawn,
Blackrock, President. Mrs. Anna M. Haslam, 91, Rathmines Road, Treasure!'.
Mrs. Caroline Eason, Kenilworth Square, Rathgar ; Mrs. D. Were, Highfield
Road, Rathgar, Hon. Secretaries.

31

THE BELFAST BKANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.— Rev,
Charles Seaver, M.A., Incninbent of St. John’s, 16, Botanic Avenue ; Rev.
George Shaw, Presbyterian Minister, Wellington Park; Rev. Joseph W. M’Kay,
Methodist Minister, College Gardens ; John Coates, late Secretary to the Grand
Jury, Co. Antrim, Seacliff, Bangor, Co. Down ; Foster Green, Member of the
Society of Friends, Derry volgie, Ron. Secretaries. Robert Thompson, Treasurer.

THE BELFAST LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. I. K. Ewart, Glenmachan
House, Treasurer. Miss I. M, S. Tod, 126, Albion Place ; Mrs. C. S, Ross, 7,
Wellington Place, Hon. Secretaries.

THE CORK BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.— H. Richardson,
Registrar, Court of Probate, Chairman, G. Addey, 69, Patrick Street, Treasurer.
E. A. Wright, 16, Patrick Street, Hon. Secretary.

THE CORK LADIES’ ASSOCIATION.— Mrs. W. Taylor, Fairleigh Place
President. Mrs. H. E. White, 1, Carolina Terrace, Patrick Street, Hon. Secretary
Mrs. Sarah A. Wright, 16, Patrick Street, Treasurer.

i

i

s

:i

A

.'t.

'■V

I